Introduction

Anticipating future impacts from climate change is a challenging task. Climate change is one of the most dramatic and widespread impacts the modern world has faced and attempting to come to terms with the data and implications can be daunting. Fortunately we are not facing it alone. Tribal and non-tribal peoples around the world are engaged in efforts to halt fossil fuel production, move to renewable energy and transportation systems, document the current impacts from climate change, and plan for the future. This report is one piece of that effort. The Karuk Department of Natural Resources Strategic Plan notes that:

“Since time immemorial, the Karuk have lived in the Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains in the mid- Klamath River region of northern California. With an Aboriginal Territory that includes an estimated 1.38 million acres, the ancestral people of the Karuk resided in more than one hundred villages along the Klamath and Salmon Rivers and tributaries. Thriving with a subsistence economy supported by rich natural endowments and a strong culture-based commitment to land stewardship, Karuk environmental management has shaped the region’s ecological conditions for millennia. Through carefully observing natural processes, the Karuk have developed traditional management regimes based on a landscape-level ecosystem approach. Self-described as “fix the world people”, the Karuk continue ceremonies that restore balance and renew the world.”

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Juvenile fish die-offs have already been a regular summer occurrence due to low flows, high water temps and resulting diseases. Photo: KSMC

Today, the task of fixing the world involves dealing with new threats to both riverine and “upslope” forest or broader landscape habitats and species in the face of climate change, as shifting and increasingly variable precipitation patterns impact stream flows, snowpack, river temperatures and fire regimes (Butz et al. 2015, Melillo et al. 2014, Karl et al. 2009, Spies et al. 2010, Lata et al. 2010, Fettig et al. 2013, Wimberly and Liu 2014, Mote et al. 2014). Climate change is still often thought of as an issue affecting future people in some far away place. Within Karuk ancestral territory on the mid Klamath, the effects of climate change are immediate and occurring now (Butz and Safford 2010 and 2011, Vander Schaaf et al. 2004, Olson et al. 2012, Damschen et al. 2010, Harrison et al. 2010).

Ongoing and future ecological outcomes of climate change in the Mid Klamath region of California include changes in precipitation patterns, increased droughts, increased frequency and severity of wildfires, and disease and pest outbreaks (Butz et al. 2015, Garfin et al. 2014, Mote et al. 2014). Temperature measurements from Orleans, California, where the Karuk Department of Natural Resources is located, indicate that between 1931 and 2014 average annual temperatures increased by 2o F (1.1° C) (Butz et al. 2015). Klamath River temperature has also increased in the last fifty years (Bartholow 2005). Precipitation for Karuk Homeland territory is expected to be more variable, with a trend in increasing elevation for the snow/rain elevation. Maritime influences, on shore storms are predicted to moderate, the influences of more interior warming and drying for the western Klamath region (Butz and Safford 2010 and 2011, Vander Schaaf et al. 2004, Coops and Waring 2001).

These local impacts are consistent with regional, national and international trends as well as climate models (Bennett et al. 2014, Butz et al. 2015, Coops and Waring 2001, Dalton and Mote 2013, Gafin et al. 2014). Statewide, California is the hottest and driest since modern record keeping has taken place (Mann and Gleick 2015). The 2014 National Climate Assessment reports for the Southwest Region, which includes California, relates in their key findings that snowpack and streamflow amounts are projected to decline in parts of the Southwest, and increased warming, drought, and insect outbreaks, all caused by or linked to climate change have increased wildfires (see further discussion of these trends and their impacts in Chapter One).

Among the most pressing of the local dimensions of climate change taking place within Karuk ancestral territory is the increased risk of high severity fire (Lenihan et al. 2008), Mote and co-authors write:

The largest effects of future climatic variability or change on Northwest forests are likely to arise from changes in fire frequency and severity. Changes in other disturbances, such as wind, insects, and disease, are also possible under climatic change, although the potential character of these disturbances under climatic change is poorly understood. General warming is likely to encourage northward expansion of southern insects, while longer growing seasons are highly likely to allow more insect generations in a season. Forests that are moisture stressed are often more susceptible to attack by insects such as bark beetles and spruce budworm, although the timing and magnitude of effects varies greatly (e.g., Thomson et al., 1984; Swetnam and Lynch, 1993). Interactions between multiple disturbances (e.g., between insects and fire) will be especially important under projected climatic change (2003, p. 71).

US Forest Service Fire Effects Information Systems glossary defines fire severity as “the degree of environmental change caused by fire” (USFS ND). In this assessment, we use “high severity fire” to refer to fires that lead to severe soil and vegetation burns, including but not limited to fire that replaces entire stands and affects high percentages of the upper canopy layer. 11Locally in the Klamath Mountain region fire severity patterns have been described and evaluated with related but different metrics (see Odion et al. 2004, Miller et al. 2009 and 2012, Halofsky et al. 2011). The Klamath Basin has experienced a progressive increase in high severity fire in recent years as a result of both climate change and past and present federal land management practices that have led to increased fuel loads (Odion et al. 2004, Miller et al. 2009 and 2012, Taylor and Skinner 2003). While fire
is a central component of Karuk management and culture, increased fire severity and frequency poses particular and unique risks to specific Karuk tribal foods and cultural use species on the one hand, and to broader Tribal programmatic goals and activities on the other (Lake 2007 and 2013, Norgaard 2014, see Welch 2012 and Lake and Long 2014 for a broader discussion of fire effects to cultural resources and tribal values).

In addition to increases in fire severity, there are changing patterns of fire size, and changes in the frequency of these very large hot fires. Changes in fire size also result from a combination of climate change and local management actions. For the last thousand years, forested areas have become adapted to frequent occurrence of relatively low intensity fire from human and natural ignitions (Perry et al. 2011). These fire adapted forests burned in smaller overall areas in mosaic patterns that contained patches of high intensity fire (Mohr et al. 2000, Skinner et al. 2006, Perry et al. 2011).

IMG_0186

Beaver Creek tree plantation after high severity fire. Photo: Stefan Dosch

Today, a combination of a century of fire exclusion, the presence of even-age highly fire prone tree ‘plantations,’ post logging brush fields, and changing patterns of temperature and precipitation have led to a series of very large, hot fires within Karuk ancestral territory and homelands (Odion et al. 2004, see Chapter Two). Again, the frequency of these much larger, high severity fires is increasing (Miller et al. 2012). Taken together, climate change and past management activities have created landscape conditions that could be completely devastating with future fires.

These conditions have the potential to transition much of Karuk ancestral territory to an early seral condition that has a tendency to repeatedly burn at high severity (Odion et al. 2010, Cocking et al. 2012). Such circumstances would mean the potential loss of many culturally significant species, in turn causing a domino effect through the entire ecosystem. Historical natural and human (tribal) ignitions formed landscape patterns of higher severity patches on southern aspect, higher slope near the ridges, with lower severity, or mixed severity in other locations of the landscape (see Taylor and Skinner 1998 and 2003). Fire exclusion and suppression practices, combined with forest management activities (e.g. harvesting older forest, establishing plantations). have increase the density of trees, shrubs, and fuel loading (Odion et al. 2004). Climate change, in particular changes in precipitation (ie. drought) coupled with increasing temperatures, has increased the susceptibility of forest to higher severity fires. Former frequent mixed-severity fires maintained a bio- physically mediated landscape of different vegetation conditions or seral stages. As these higher density vegetation and fuel loaded areas burn, generally the mature tree component is shifted to more early seral grass, forb, fern and shrub dominated vegetation (Shatford et al. 2007). Increases in potential receptivity of vegetation to ignition (e.g. increasing days of the fire season), now facilitates the prior-burned areas to burn again at higher severity, thus facilitating an altered state to more non-tree vegetation communities (Odion et al. 2010).

We, the Karuk Tribe are working to prevent these circumstances. We are evaluating the potential impacts of climate change in our region and preparing responses to mitigate possible losses (Norgaard 2014a and b, Karuk Tribe 2012). This Climate Vulnerability Assessment is a first step towards climate adaptation planning. Changing patterns of fire behavior affect specific Karuk tribal traditional foods and cultural use species, create infrastructure vulnerabilities to Karuk tribal programs and pose broader implications for the Tribe’s long term management authority and political status (Norgaard 2014 a and b). We consider the importance of vulnerabilities at each scale in Chapters Three, Four and Five.

Climate Change and Tribal Climate Justice

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defines vulnerability as “the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. Vulnerability encompasses a variety of concepts and elements including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt” (2014, p. 1775). 13An abundance of environmental and climate justice literature emphasizes that poor people and people of color will continue to be more impacted than the population at large as the climate changes (Cuomo 2011, Lynn et al. 2011, Shonkoff et al. 2011). While communities around the world are challenged to come to terms with unique combinations of ecological, economic and political threats, tribes face amongst the most immediate and significant impacts (Bennett et al. 2014, Cameron 2012, Donatuto and O’Neil 2010, Hanna 2007, Maldonado et al. 2013, Marino 2012, Stumpff 2009, Tsosie 2013, Whyte 2013, Williams and Hardison 2013, Wood 2014, Huffman 2014).

The 2014 National Climate Assessment Indigenous Peoples chapter explains that climate change impacts on tribes are likely to be especially severe given that they are “compounded by a number of persistent social and economic problems,” and that indigenous adaptive responses “occur against a backdrop of centuries-old cultures already stressed by historical events and contemporary conditions” (Bennett et al. 2014, p. 298). The authors identify a number of vulnerabilities that may affect (and are in some cases already affecting) indigenous communities in the face of climate change, including loss of traditional knowledge as a result of rapidly changing ecological conditions, increased food insecurity due to reduced availability of traditional foods, changing water availability, and loss of historic homelands in which indigenous lives, “The 2014 National Climate Assessment Indigenous Peoples chapter explains that climate change impacts on tribes are likely to be especially severe given that they are “compounded by a number of persistent social and economic problems,” and that indigenous adaptive responses “occur against a backdrop of centuries-old cultures already stressed by historical events and contemporary conditions.” traditions and subsistence activities have been carried out for millennia (Bennett et al. 2014).

As Karuk people we are fortunate to retain relationships with hundreds of species we consider our relations (Lake et al. 2010). These foods, medicines and fibers are embedded within cultural, social, spiritual, economic and political systems, and daily life (Lake 2013, Norgaard 2014). Impacts to culturally significant species in the face of climate change have thus more direct impacts on Karuk people than for communities who no longer retain such intimate connections with other beings and places in the natural world. Part of the increased vulnerabilities Karuk people face as the climate changes are a direct result of the strength of these connections. For example, the loss of acorn groves that have been family gathering sites for generations is much more than an economic impact.

Karuk culture is directly reliant and dependent on mixed fire severity regimes (see Lake 2007, Norgaard 2014 c.) Burning at a specific season, frequency, and intensity for a variety of severities linked with various vegetation community fire effects perpetuate cultural ecosystem services and resources. Many basketry materials require specific prescriptions or applied fire to promote morphological plant characteristics (Anderson 1999), or forest related food resources and habitat quality (Anderson and Lake 2013, Lake and Long 2014). Fire was and is a tool to manipulate landscape- to patch-scale fire effects necessary for Karuk cultural sustenance and well-being (Lake 2013).

A second dimension of Karuk vulnerability to high severity fire in light of climate change results from the actions taken (and not taken) by federal land managers before, during and after high severity fires (Welch 2012, Timmons et al. 2012, Norgaard 2014). A major dimension of vulnerability related to jurisdictional recognition and its results for tribal management authority and sovereignty (Williams and Hardison 2013, Tsosie 2007and 2012). The federal government’s primary trust responsibility to Indian Tribes was reaffirmed in 2014 by Secretarial Order 333-5: Federal Trust Responsibility to Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Individual Indian Beneficiaries (Sec. Order 3335- Jewell 2014). Furthermore, as the Department of Interior acknowledged in Secretarial Order 3289, this responsibility includes the duty to protect lands from the impacts of climate change (USDI 2009). Despite the many policies regarding tribal consultation and tribal trust responsibility, lack of implementation of these policies in practice leaves Karuk tribal jurisdiction mostly unrecognized. Responding to the impacts of increased high severity fire both during and after the fires themselves requires coordination across jurisdictions with multiple federal and state governmental entities that may or may not understand their consultation responsibilities, carry them out appropriately, have conducted their own climate planning, or included the Karuk Tribe in their climate planning efforts. 15The resources and actions (or lack thereof) of federal agencies, from the U.S. Forest Service to CalTrans, can impact Karuk tribal vulnerabilities as much as climate change itself. An increased frequency of high severity wildfire has the potential to negatively impact infrastructure provided by other entities such as roads, electricity and water systems, which in turn may affect species of concern, program capacity and management authority (Chief et al. 2014, Cozzetto et al. 2013).

Responding to high severity fire in the context of this unrecognized jurisdiction is enormously time consuming for Karuk tribal staff. Unrecognized jurisdiction impacts tribal program capacity and management authority, leading to further unequal burdens for tribes. This Vulnerability Assessment engages the vulnerabilities faced by the Karuk Tribe in practice through an examination of both direct impacts from the increased severity of wildfire, and the impacts we as a Tribe face in light of the actions of federal agencies.

Climate Change Compels Action

The seriousness of climate change for humans and all species compels immediate action. Action is needed both to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, and to cope with the present and continuing ecological and atmospheric changes affecting the Karuk Tribe. In

December of 2015 the leaders of nearly 200 nations around the world committed to keep global temperatures from exceeding 1.5 degrees C above modern levels. The “Paris Agreement” is, however, non-binding. It is imperative upon all people to keep pressure on responsible parties to take appropriate steps to reach this goal. Responding to the changing climate requires many different forms of action at many scales. Each nation, community, family and individual is uniquely positioned to respond in different ways. The most useful and appropriate actions to take will also vary across time.

Tribes have been key leaders in responding to climate change through both so-called
mitigation —efforts to stop further climate change— and adaptation — developing
responsive measures for coping with the unfolding ecological and atmospheric changes.
Tribes can often be found leading the way in climate change policy, strategy and resistance by participating in the political process, engaging in sustainable land stewardship, and being at the forefront of many climate change activism efforts (Williams and Hardison 2013, Whyte 2013). Despite not being major greenhouse gas emitters, many tribes have embarked upon ambitious projects to reduce their emissions including use of renewable energy and transportation sources. One important step many tribes are taking to prepare their communities for ongoing climate change impacts is carrying out a climate vulnerability assessment—such as this one— to find out the ways in which their communities are vulnerable to the climate impact projected for their region.1 These vulnerability assessments are typically followed up by the development of tribal climate change adaptation plans that aim to maximize tribal resistance and resilience in the face of projected impacts. The vulnerability assessment we have developed here is unique in that it holds the potential to inform both adaptation and mitigation efforts, given that wildfires themselves generate emissions (McMeeking et al. 2006, Langmann et al. 2009), and a reduction in high severity fires could result in a reduction in forest emissions (Defossé et al. 2011, Hurteau and North 2009, Volkova et al. 2014).

Need for Tribal Knowledge and Leadership

This document assesses vulnerabilities faced by the Karuk Tribe in light of increasing fire severity. It is important to note, however, that while much focus has been placed on the vulnerability of indigenous communities, the traditional knowledge, and deep interpersonal and interspecies network ties that often form part of indigenous communities are sources of significant resilience. 17Historically, tribes have adapted to numerous large- scale changes, be they environmental or social (Turner and Clifton 2009; Whyte 2013). If tribes are more vulnerable today it is not because of an inherent weakness, but because of the way colonialism and Western land management policies and practices have limited—if not outlawed— the ability of indigenous communities to exercise their resilient lifeways (See section on “Perspectives on Climate Change Vulnerability and Resilience” in Vinyeta et al. 2015 (p. 19) for more discussion).

Climate change vividly reveals the flaws of Western economic and environmental principles and practices. Western capitalist economies have prioritized profit over well-being, and individualism over community. Many proposed climate change solutions protect the status quo by prioritizing profit and individual responsibility, yet there is also an increasing realization that solutions must be found elsewhere, in alternative, community-based models that prioritize long-term social and environmental wellbeing (Whyte 2013, Dunlap and Brulle 2015). Recognizing tribal knowledge, leadership and management at this juncture allows forward movement at multiple levels. Fortunately, in the face of the changing climate, many ecologists, fire scientists and policy makers, Native and non-Native alike have turned to indigenous knowledge and management practices with renewed interest and optimism in the hope that they may provide a much needed path towards both adaptation and reducing emissions 18(Williams and Hardison 2013, Martinez 2011, Raygorodetsky 2011, Vinyeta and Lynn 2013, Whyte 2013, Wildcat 2009).

In particular there is increasing recognition of the importance of indigenous burning as an ecosystem component and restoration technique (Arno 1985, Lewis 1982, Mason et al. 2012, Kimmerer and Lake 2001). Many Western scientists and practitioners note that Native management practices allow for multi-species management, landscape patchiness, and the abundance of important species (see e.g. McGregor 2008, Smith and Sharp 2012, Whyte 2013, Willliams and Hardison 2013, Eriksen and Hankins 2014). In the face of the ecological threat of climate change there has been a heightened understanding of the value of indigenous traditional ecological knowledge regarding the use of fire by Western science practitioners, academic institutions and Federal and State land management agencies (see e.g. Agrawal 2002, NRCS/Native Practices Work Group 2010, Ross et al. 2010, Whyte 2013, Huffman 2014). Indeed, tribal management techniques are often the most effective mechanism to achieve many aspects of public land management desired by all agencies. Especially in the face of climate change, enabling tribes’ abilities to use traditional management techniques may be the best way for agencies to achieve their own goals on issues as diverse as protection of the wildland/urban interface, providing habitats for fish, wildlife, and plants, combating incursion by invasive species, and supporting local economies. This is so not only because tribes have proven techniques for maintaining ecological conditions in the face of intensive fuel loading and past wildfire suppression; tribes frequently also have less bureaucratic structures than other agencies. Tribes have existing authorities for many management actions under shared jurisdiction within existing Federal trust responsibilities that ought to be more fully implemented (Lake and Long 2014; Norgaard 2014b).

Approach

This assessment takes a multidimensional approach to evaluating the vulnerabilities that important traditional foods and cultural use species, Karuk tribal programs and tribal management authority may face in light of the increased frequency of high severity wildfire. This approach is illustrated by the notion that fire is medicine, that fire is a component of traditional ecological knowledge and that humans are ecosystem components (see Wells 2014).

Fire is Medicine

2v0a4582

Kids picking up tan oak acorns in 2016 to process and eat. This forest burned in 2013. Photo: Stormy Staats, KSMC

This document works from the starting point that fire is necessary for the landscape to thrive. Karuk use of fire has been central to the evolution of the flora and fauna of the mid- Klamath ecosystem (Anderson 2005, Lake 2007 and 2013, Lake et al. 2010, Skinner et al. 2006). Fire is especially important for restoring grasslands for elk, managing for food sources including tan and black oak acorns, maintaining quality basketry materials, producing smoke that can shade the river for fish, and more. Karuk fire regimes generate pyrodiversity on the landscape by extending the season of burn and shortening fire return intervals. The multitude of foods, materials and other products that come from Karuk environments are in turn evidence of the profound diversity of fire regimes that are required to maintain relationships with hundreds of animal, plant, and mushroom species (Lake 2007 and 2013, Anderson and Lake 2013). As Karuk Director of Natural Resources Leaf Hillman puts it, “Fire is a cultural resource.”

Fire and Traditional Ecological Knowledge

Despite its central importance for both ecosystem and community well-being, Karuk traditional knowledge regarding the use of fire is at risk of decline due to factors ranging from the dynamics of forced assimilation and lack of acknowledgement by non-Native land management agencies, to insufficient tribal management capacity and even the extent of ecological changes in ecosystems themselves (see Huffman 2013 and 2014). Maintaining Karuk traditional knowledge requires the practice of cultural management. Traditional knowledge is a living system that is enacted and carried on thorough active ongoing management. Land management is a central expression and affirmation of Karuk culture, identity, spirituality and mental and physical health (Lake et al. 2010).

Humans as Ecosystem Components

Not only is climate change the result of human activity, humans are integral components of the Klamath ecosystem. Humans have shaped the ecology, fire behavior and species composition of Karuk ancestral territory through tribal traditional management, and since 1910, through the activities of the US Forest Service (Crawford et al. 2015). Increasing fire severity is due to a combination of the changes in temperature and precipitation described above and the fact that fire suppression in the Klamath Mountains has decreased fire return intervals, resulting in increased fuel loads and fire severities for many forested riparian zones (Lake 2007, Skinner 1995, Skinner 2003, Skinner et al. 2006). That humans are ecosystem components matters for other reasons as well. When wildfires occur they are the subject of additional management actions, usually some form of fire suppression. And long after fires have ceased to burn, management actions such as re-seeding, sediment control, road building and salvage logging may occur. Understanding climate-induced vulnerabilities for particular species therefore requires an interdisciplinary approach that incorporates biological and fire science with sociological understanding of human factors. Discussions of habitat zones and species profiles reflect this intersectional dimension to vulnerability. For each species of focus we address how cultural burning benefits the species (see example of Spring Chinook Salmon in Table 1).

20

Secondly, we address how species may be impacted during a high severity fire event, during the immediate aftermath (roughly 24 months) and long term. (See Table 2).

21

Third, the vulnerabilities faced by the Karuk Tribe in the context of high severity wildfire do not occur in a vacuum. These vulnerabilities must be understood in the context of existing susceptibilities, as well as the past, present and future management actions of Tribal and non-Tribal land managers. Not only does high severity wildfire hold the potential to negatively affect some species more than others for biological reasons, species with already compromised ecological niches that may have more difficulty in adapting will be at greater risk in the event of large scale, high severity fires ( USFS FEIS for species profiles). Furthermore, past management actions such as logging, road building or fire suppression interact with fire events to influence the level of eco-cultural vulnerability, as do management actions taking during a fire and those that may follow in the long term. As such, our analysis also considers how past management actions, management actions taken during a high intensity wildfire event, and those that may come in the future may create vulnerabilities for a given species (see example in Table 3).

22

The above tables illustrate our intersectional approach with respect to vulnerabilities of specific species. Vulnerabilities to program capacity and tribal management authority follow the same format.

Overview

Chapter One of this assessment provides general context on the Karuk Tribe, including location, size, political status and infrastructural context. This chapter then describes general challenges of climate change within Karuk ancestral territory and homelands (beyond wildfire) and their health, economic and social consequences. Chapter Two gives a more detailed discussion of the complexity of fire as both medicine and traditional practice on the one hand, and a potentially dangerous force in light of changing patterns of fire behavior due to climate change on the other. This chapter engages centrally with the notion that humans are ecosystem components and that climate change is not happening in isolation of other failing non-Native management actions affecting Karuk foods, programs and management authority. Chapter Three examines how increasing high severity fire creates vulnerabilities for traditional foods and culturally important species. The discussion centers on six different habitat zones, each followed by a series of profiles on how high severity fire creates vulnerabilities for specific species within that habitat type.

Chapter Four examines how high severity fire creates vulnerabilities to tribal program capacity at three time scales: during high intensity fires, immediately following, and over the long term. Specific detail is provided for a number of programs within the Karuk Department of Natural Resources and for the Health Program. Chapter Five details vulnerabilities to tribal management authority in the face of high severity fires. This chapter examines the pre-fire jurisdictional context of the Karuk Tribe and the pre-fire management actions of federal agencies that influence tribal management authority.

Chapter Five then considers how interruptions to the practice of traditional knowledge, the crisis management orientation to fires, shifting jurisdictional terrain, and the focus and interest in the Klamath region by non-Native practitioners each shapes vulnerabilities related to the increasing frequency of high severity fire. We examine these issues at three temporal scales (during fires, immediately afterwards and long term).

Climate change poses a threat not only to the Klamath ecosystem, but also to Karuk culture, which is intimately intertwined with the presence, use and management of cultural use species (Karuk Tribe 2010, Lake et al. 2010, Norgaard 2005). While a complete Climate Adaptation Plan is needed, the conclusion points to preliminary recommendations based on this assessment. Restoring fire processes and function is about restoring the human responsibility to other species. In the context of climate change, Karuk tribal knowledge and management principles regarding the use of fire can be utilized to reduce the likelihood of high severity fires and thereby protect public as well as tribal trust resources (Norgaard 2014).

1 See e.g. Pacific NorthWest Tribal Climate Change Network website, http://tribalclimate.uoregon.edu/links/

References
Agrawal, Arun. 2002. “Indigenous Knowledge and the Politics of Classification.”

International Social Science Journal. 54: 287-97.

Anderson, M. Kat. 2005. Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s Natural Resources. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 558 p.

Anderson, M.K. 1999. The Fire, pruning , and coppice management of temperate ecosystems for basketry material by California Indian tribes. Human Ecology 27(1): 79– 113.

Arno, S.F. 1985. Ecological effects and management implications of Indian fires. In Proceedings: symposium and workshop on wilderness fire. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-182. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 302–303.

Bartholow, J.M. 2005. Recent Water Temperature Trends in the Lower Klamath River, California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:152–162

Bennett, T. M. B.; Maynard, N. G.; Cochran, P.; Gough, R.; Lynn, K.; Maldonado, J.; Voggesser, G.; Wotkyns, S.; Cozzetto, K. 2014. “Indigenous Peoples, Lands, and

Resources.” In Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 297-317. doi:10.7930/J09G5JR1.

Butz, Ramona J., S. Sawyer and H Safford. 2015. “A summary of current trends and probable future trends in climate and climate-driven processes for the Six Rivers National Forest and surrounding lands.” Internal USFS document

Butz, R. J. and H. Safford 2011. A summary of current trends and probable future trends in climate and climate driven processes for the Klamath National Forest and surrounding lands Internal USFS document

Cameron, E.S. 2012. Securing indigenous politics: a critique of the vulnerability and adaptation approach to the human dimensions of climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Global Environmental Change–Human and Policy Dimensions. 22: 103–114.

Chief, K., Daigle, J.J., Lynn, K. and Whyte, K.P., 2014. Indigenous experiences in the US with climate change and environmental stewardship in the Anthropocene. USDA Forest Service RMRS-P-71, Pages: 161-176

Cocking, M.I., Varner, J.M. and Sherriff, R.L., 2012. California black oak responses to fire severity and native conifer encroachment in the Klamath Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management, 270, pp.25-34.

Coops, N.C. and Waring, R.H., 2001. Assessing forest growth across southwestern Oregon under a range of current and future global change scenarios using a process model, 3-PG. Global Change Biology, 7(1), pp.15-29.

Cozzetto, K., Chief, K., Dittmer, K., Brubaker, M., Gough, R., Souza, K., Ettawageshik, F., Wotkyns, S., Opitz-Stapleton, S., Duren, S. and Chavan, P., 2013. Climate change impacts on the water resources of American Indians and Alaska Natives in the US. Climatic Change, 120(3), pp.569-584.

Crawford, J.N., Mensing, S.A., Lake, F.K. and Zimmerman, S.R., 2015. Late Holocene fire and vegetation reconstruction from the western Klamath Mountains, California, USA: A multi-disciplinary approach for examining potential human land-use impacts. The Holocene, p.0959683615584205.

Cuomo, C. 2011. “Climate Change, Vulnerability, And Responsibility.” Hypatia. 26: 690– 714.

Dalton, M.M., Mote, P.W. and A.K. Snover 2013 (eds). Climate Change in the Northwest: Implications for Our Landscapes, Waters and Communities. Island Press.

Damschen, E.I., Harrison, S. and Grace, J.B., 2010. Climate change effects on an endemic‐rich edaphic flora: resurveying Robert H. Whittaker’s Siskiyou sites (Oregon, USA). Ecology, 91(12), pp.3609-3619.

Donatuto, Jamie; O’Neill, Catherine A. 2010. “Protecting First Foods in the Face of Climate Change— Summary and Call to Action.” Presented at the Coast Salish Gathering Climate Change Summit, July 2010. Can be found as Appendix 4 in the Swinomish Climate Adaptation Action Plan: http://www.swinomish.org/climate_change/Docs/SITC_CC_AdaptationActionPlan_comple te.pdf. (August 29, 2016).

Dunlap, R.E. and Brulle, R.J. eds., 2015. Climate change and society: sociological perspectives. Oxford University Press.

Eriksen, C. and D. Hankins 2014. Indigenous Fire Knowledge Retention, Chapter 5 in Eriksen (ed.) Gender and Wildfire-Landscape of Uncertainty, Routhledge International Studies of Women and Place, New York, NY. Pages: 86-104

Fettig, C.J., Reid, M.L., Bentz, B.J., Sevanto, S., Spittlehouse, D.L. and Wang, T., 2013.

Changing climates, changing forests: A western North American perspective. Journal of Forestry, 111(3), pp.214-228.

Garfin, G., G. Franco, H. Blanco, A. Comrie, P. Gonzalez, T. Piechota, R. Smyth, and R. Waskom, 2014: Ch. 20: Southwest. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 462-486. doi:10.7930/J08G8HMN.

Hanna, J.M. 2007. “Native Communities And Climate Change: Protecting Tribal Resources As Part Of National Climate Policy.” Boulder, CO: the Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado Law School. In conjunction with, the Western Water Assessment at the University of Colorado. http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies/15/. (August 22, 2016).

Halofsky, J.E., Donato, D.C., Hibbs, D.E., Campbell, J.L., Cannon, M.D., Fontaine, J.B., Thompson, J.R., Anthony, R.G., Bormann, B.T., Kayes, L.J. and Law, B.E., 2011. Mixed- severity fire regimes: lessons and hypotheses from the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion. Ecosphere, 2(4), pp.1-19.

Harrison, S., Damschen, E.I. and Grace, J.B., 2010. Ecological contingency in the effects of climatic warming on forest herb communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(45), pp.19362-19367.

Huffman, M, R 2014 Making a World of Difference. Fire Ecology Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages: 90-101 doi: 10.4996/fireecology.1003090

Huffman, M.R., 2013. The many elements of traditional fire knowledge: synthesis, classification, and aids to cross-cultural problem solving in fire-dependent systems around the world. Ecology and Society, 18(3).

Hurteau, M. and North, M., 2009. Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon storage and emissions under modeled wildfire scenarios. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(8), pp.409-414.

Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources [Karuk DNR]. 2010. “Karuk Tribe Draft Eco-Cultural Resources Management Plan.” http://www.karuk.us/images/docs/dnr/ECRMP_6-15-10_doc.pdf. (September 2, 2016).

Karuk Tribe 2012 Karuk Tribe Climate Change Profile Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge with Natural REsoruce Management. available online: http://tribalclimate.uoregon.edu/files/2010/11/Karuk_profile_5_14-12_web1.pdf

Kimmerer, R.W.; Lake, F. 2001. The Role Of Indigenous Burning In Land Management. Journal of Forestry. 99(11): 36–41.

Lake, Frank. 2007. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge to Develop and Maintain Fire Regimes in Northwestern California, Klamath-Siskiyou Bioregion: Management and Restoration of Culturally Significant Habitats.” PhD diss., Oregon State University.

Lake, Frank; Tripp, Bill; Reed, Ron. 2010. “The Karuk Tribe, Planetary Stewardship, And World Renewal On The Middle Klamath River, California.” Ecological Society of America Bulletin. 147–149. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/35556

Lake, F.K. and Long, J.W., 2014. -Fire and tribal cultural resources In Long et al. 2014. Science Synthesis to Support Socio-ecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-247, Pages: 173-186. Chapter 4.2 http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/46960

Langmann, B., Duncan, B., Textor, C., Trentmann, J. and van der Werf, G.R., 2009.

Vegetation fire emissions and their impact on air pollution and climate. Atmospheric Environment, 43(1), pp.107-116.

Latta, G., Temesgen, H., Adams, D. and Barrett, T., 2010. Analysis of potential impacts of climate change on forests of the United States Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(4), pp.720-729.

Lenihan, J.M., Bachelet, D., Neilson, R.P. and Drapek, R., 2008. Response of vegetation distribution, ecosystem productivity, and fire to climate change scenarios for California. Climatic Change, 87(1), pp.215-230.

Lewis, H.T. 1982. “Fire Technology And Resource Management In Aboriginal North America And Australia.” In: Williams, N.M.; Hunn, E.S., eds. Resource managers: North American and Australian hunter and gatherers. American Association for the Advancement of Science Selected Symposium Series No. 67. Boulder, OR: Westview Press: 45–67.

Loehman, R. A., Reinhardt, E., & Riley, K. L. 2014. Wildland fire emissions, carbon, and climate: Seeing the forest and the trees–A cross-scale assessment of wildfire and carbon dynamics in fire-prone, forested ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management, 317, 9-19.

Lynn, Kathy, Katharine MacKendrick, and Ellen M. Donoghue. 2011.”Social Vulnerability and Climate Change Synthesis of Literature.” Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo12563. (August 24, 2016)

Maldonado, Julie Koppel; Christine Shearer, Robin Bronen, Kristina
Peterson, and Heather Lazrus. 2013. “The Impact of Climate Change on Tribal Communities in the US: Displacement, Relocation, and Human Rights.” Climatic Change (special issue). 120: 601-614.

Martin, R. E.; Sapsis, D. B. 1992. Fires as agents of biodiversity: pyrodiversity promotes biodiversity. In Proceedings of the conference on biodiversity of northwest California ecosystems. Cooperative Extension, University of California, Berkeley.

Mann, Michael E.; Gleick, Peter H. 2015. “Climate Change and California Drought in the 21st Century.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112: 3858-9.

Marino, Elizabeth. 2012. “The Long History Of Environmental Migration: Assessing Vulnerability Construction And Obstacles To Successful Relocation In Shishmaref, Alaska.” Global Environmental Change. 22:374–381

Martinez, D. 2011. “Indigenous Ecosystem-Based Adaptation And Community-Based Ecocultural Restoration During Rapid Climate Disruption: Lessons For Western Restorationists.” http://www.scribd.com/doc/76322289/Dennis-Martinez-2011. (June 27, 2012).

Mason, L.; White, G.; Morishima, G.; Alvarado, E.; Andrew, L.; Clark, F.; Durglo, M.; Durglo, J.; Eneas, J.; Erickson, J. 2012. “Listening And Learning From Traditional Knowledge And Western Science: A Dialogue On Contemporary Challenges Of Forest Health And Wildfire.” Journal of Forestry. 110 (4): 187–193.

McGregor, D. 2008. :Linking Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Western
Science: Aboriginal Perspectives on SOLEC.: Canadian Journal of Native Studies. 28:139-158

McMeeking, G.R., Kreidenweis, S.M., Lunden, M., Carrillo, J., Carrico, C.M., Lee, T., Herckes, P., Engling, G., Day, D.E., Hand, J. and Brown, N., 2006. Smoke-impacted

regional haze in California during the summer of 2002. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 137(1), pp.25-42.

Melillo, J. M., Richmond, T. T., and Yohe, G. W. 2014. Climate change impacts in the United States. Third National Climate Assessment.

Miller, J.D., Knapp, E.E., Key, C.H., Skinner, C.N., Isbell, C.J., Creasy, R.M. and Sherlock, J.W., 2009. Calibration and validation of the relative differenced Normalized Burn Ratio (RdNBR) to three measures of fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Remote Sensing of Environment, 113(3), pp.645-656.

Miller, J.D., Skinner, C.N., Safford, H.D., Knapp, E.E. and Ramirez, C.M., 2012. Trends and causes of severity, size, and number of fires in northwestern California, USA. Ecological Applications, 22(1), pp.184-203.

Mohr, J. A.; Whitlock, C.; Skinner, C. N. 2000. Postglacial Vegetation And Fire History, Eastern Klamath Mountains, California, USA. The Holocene. 10:587–601.

Mote, P.W., Parson, E.A., Hamlet, A.F., Keeton, W.S., Lettenmaier, D., Mantua, N., Miles, E.L., Peterson, D.W., Peterson, D.L., Slaughter, R. and Snover, A.K., 2003. Preparing for climatic change: the water, salmon, and forests of the Pacific Northwest. Climatic change, 61(1-2), pp.45-88.

Norgaard, Kari M. 2005. “The Effects Of Altered Diet On The Health Of The Karuk People.” Submitted to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket # P-2082 on Behalf of the Karuk Tribe of California. http://pages.uoregon.edu/norgaard/pdf/Effects-Altered-Diet- Karuk-Norgaard-2005.pdf. (September 2, 2016).

Norgaard, Kari M. 2014a. Karuk Traditional Ecological Knowledge and the Need for Knowledge Sovereignty: Social, Cultural and Economic Impacts of Denied Access to Traditional Management.” Karuk Tribe. Available online: https://karuktribeclimatechangeprojects.wordpress.com/

Norgaard, Kari M. 2014b. Retaining Knowledge Sovereignty: Practical Steps Towards Expanding the Application of Karuk Traditional Knowledge in the Face of Climate Change, Karuk Tribe. Available online: https://karuktribeclimatechangeprojects.wordpress.com/

Norgaard, Kari M., 2014c. The Politics of Fire and the Social Impacts of Fire Exclusion on the Klamath. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 36(1): 73-97. http://pages.uoregon.edu/norgaard/pdf/Politics-Fire-Social-Impacts-Fire-Exclusion- Norgaard-2014.pdf

NRCS/Native Practices Work Group]. 2010. Indigenous Stewardship Methods And Nrcs Conservation Practices Guidebook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_012267.pdf (September 1, 2016).

Odion, D.C., Frost, E.J., Strittholt, J.R., Jiang, H., Dellasala, D.A. and Moritz, M.A., 2004.

Patterns of fire severity and forest conditions in the western Klamath Mountains, California. Conservation Biology, 18(4), pp.927-936.

Olson, D., DellaSala, D.A., Noss, R.F., Strittholt, J.R., Kass, J., Koopman, M.E. and Allnutt, T.F., 2012. Climate change refugia for biodiversity in the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion. Natural Areas Journal, 32(1), pp.65-74.

Perry, D.A., Hessburg, P.F., Skinner, C.N., Spies, T.A., Stephens, S.L., Taylor, A.H., Franklin, J.F., McComb, B. and Riegel, G., 2011. The ecology of mixed severity fire regimes in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California. Forest Ecology and Management, 262(5), pp.703-717.

Raygorodetsky, G. 2011. “Why Traditional Knowledge Holds The Key To Climate Change.” United Nations University. http://unu.edu/articles/global-change- sustainable- development/why-traditional-knowledge-holds-the-key-to- climate-change. (December 13, 2011).

Ross, A.; Sherman, R.; Snodgrass, J.G.; Delcore, H.D. 2010. Indigenous peoples and the collaborative stewardship of nature: knowledge binds and institutional conflicts. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Shatford, J.P.A., Hibbs, D.E. and Puettmann, K.J., 2007. Conifer regeneration after forest fire in the Klamath-Siskiyous: How much, how soon?. Journal of Forestry, 105(3), pp.139- 146.

Shonkoff, S.; Morello-Frosch, R.; Pastor, M.; Sadd, J. 2011. “The Climate Gap: Environmental Health And Equity Implications Of Climate Change And Mitigation Policies In California—A Review Of The Literature.” Climatic Change. 109: 485-503.

Shu-ren, Y. 2003. Efffects of fire disturbance on forest hydrology. Journal of Forestry Research 14(4): 331-334.

Skinner, Carl N. 1995. “Change In Spatial Characteristics Of Forest Openings In The Klamath Mountains Of Northwestern California, USA.” Landscape Ecology. 10:219– 228.

Skinner, Carl N. 2003. “A Tree-Ring Based Fire History Of Riparian Reserves In The Klamath Mountains.” In California Riparian Systems: Processes And Floodplains Management, Ecology, And Restoration. 2001 Riparian Habitat and Floodplains Conference Proceedings, March 12–15, 2001, Sacramento, CA, edited by P. M. Farber. Sacramento: Riparian Habitat Joint Venture.

Skinner, Carl N.; Taylor, Alan H.; Agee, James K. 2006. Klamath Mountains Bioregion. In Fire in California’s Ecosystems, N. G. Sugihara, J. W. van Wagtendonk, J. Fites-Kaufmann, K. E. Shaffer, and A. E. Thode, Eds. University of California Press, Berkeley. 170-194.

Smith, Heather A.; Sharp, Karyn. 2012. “Indigenous Climate Knowledges.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change. 3:467-76.

Spies, T.A., Giesen, T.W., Swanson, F.J., Franklin, J.F., Lach, D. and Johnson, K.N., 2010.

Climate change adaptation strategies for federal forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA: ecological, policy, and socio-economic perspectives. Landscape ecology, 25(8), pp.1185- 1199.

Stumpff, L.M. 2009. “Climate Change And Tribal Consultation: From Dominance To DéTente.” http://www.georgewright.org/0914stumpff.pdf. (August 24, 2016).

Taylor, Alan H., and Carl N. Skinner. 2003. “Spatial patterns and controls on historical fire regimes and forest structure in the Klamath Mountains.” Ecological Applications 13.3: 704-719.

Taylor, A.H. and Skinner, C.N., 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late- successional reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 111(2), pp.285-301.

Timmons, R.S. and Ryan, K.C., 2012. Implications of fire management on cultural resources [Chapter 9] in In: Ryan, K.C.; Jones, A.T.; Koerner, C.L.; Lee, K.M., eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on cultural resources and archaeology.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station:

Tsosie, Rebecca A. 2013. “Climate Change And Indigenous Peoples: Comparative Models Of Sovereignty.” In: Abate RS, Kronk EA (eds) Climate Change And Indigenous Peoples: The Search For Legal Remedies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 79–95.

Tsosie, R.A., 2007. Indigenous people and environmental justice: the impact of climate change. University of Colorado Law Review, 78, p.1625.

Tsosie, R., 2012. Climate change and indigenous peoples: Comparative models of sovereignty. Tul. Envtl. LJ, 26, p.239.

Vander Schaaf, D., M. Schindel, D. Borgias, C. Mayer, D. Tolman, G. Kittel, J. Kagan, T. Keeler-Wolf, L. Serpa, J. Hak, K. Popper. 2004. Klamath Mountains Ecoregional Conservation Assessment. The Nature Conservancy. Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI]. 2009. Order No. 3289. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/whatwedo/climate/cop15/upload/Sec Order3289.pdf. (August 22, 2016).

U.S. Forest Service [USFS]. ND. “Fire Effects Information Systems Glossary.” http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/glossary2.html. (September 2, 2016).

Vinyeta, Kirsten; Lynn, Kathy. 2013. “Exploring The Role Of Traditional Ecological Knowledge In Climate Change Initiatives.” Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-879. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 37 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr879.pdf. (September 1, 2016).

Vinyeta, Kirsten; Powys Whyte, Kyle; Lynn, Kathy. 2015. “Climate Change Through An Intersectional Lens: Gendered Vulnerability And Resilience In Indigenous Communities In The United States.” Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-923. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr923.pdf. (September 1, 2016).

Welch, J.R. 2012. Effects of fire on intangible cultural resources: moving toward
a landscape approach. In: Ryan, K.C.; Jones, A.T.; Koerner, C.L.; Lee, K.M., eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on cultural resources and archaeology. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR-42. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 157–170. Chapter 8.

Wells, G. 2014. Traditional Ecological Knowledge: A Model for Modern Fire Management? Fire Science Digest, Issue 20, November 2014. Joint Science Fire Program.

Whyte, K.P. 2013. “Justice Forward: Tribes, Climate Adaptation And Responsibility.” Climatic Change (special issue). http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584- 013- 0743-2. (August 22, 2016).

Williams, T.; Hardison, P. 2013. “Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation.” Climatic Change (special issue). http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0850-0. (August 19, 2013).

Wimberly, M.C. and Liu, Z., 2014. Interactions of climate, fire, and management in future forests of the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management, 327, pp.270-279.

Wood, Mary Christina. 2014. “Tribal Trustees in Climate Crisis.” American Indian Law Journal. 2: 518-518.


Copyright © 2016 the Karuk Tribe. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by the Karuk Tribe. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose other than personal use. Therefore, reproduction, modification, storage in a retrieval system or retransmission, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or otherwise, for reasons other than personal use, is strictly prohibited without prior written permission.
Advertisements